Buddhism [Archive]

violencia.Proletariat

4th June 2006, 18:34

and went off to become one with nature

This is no different than praying to gods. It's completely irrational.

Also it is the most peacful religion there is and teaches a beautiful philosophy

Except in Thailand where it is actually practiced. Unlike the few trendies in america who can't evolve their minds past a need for a religion.

Also it's an atheist religion because it doesn't really believe in a god

Spirituality is not compatible with Atheism. That shit isn't real.

as it does caring for living beings

Yes because religious violence really shows you care for others :lol:

I think I'd be a buddhist if I knew more about it.

WHY? Why do you need fucking spirituality? You don't have a spirit! You don't need to pretend to be "one" with nature because that doesn't mean anything. You can't be "close" to nature unless you are referring to being physically close to it, like if you were standing next to a forest. THATS ALL!

jaycee

5th June 2006, 20:38

yeah, the nature is so boring and worthless, people aren't part of nature and therefore should show no respect for it. The earth isn't one living organism with all of it inter related and inter dependant its just there as a commodity for us to use without any scrutiny.

by the way i again was being sarcasic

this cold, dead view of the world is a completely bourgeois view, which sees everything as a dead commodity and only there to be exploited.

More Fire for the People

5th June 2006, 20:48

The problems with Buddhism are:
1. Even though Buddhism is less sexist than the Abrahamic religions, it is still sexist. For instance, in Buddhism a woman cannot obtain enlightenment, at best, she can be reincarnated as a man.
2. Buddhism teaches people to deny their feelings and accept alienation, including external forms of alienation, i.e. capitalist alienation. No fun, no pain, just acceptance.

violencia.Proletariat

6th June 2006, 18:02

yeah, the nature is so boring and worthless, people aren't part of nature and therefore should show no respect for it.

The only respect for nature we are required to show is that in which will sustainably support our industrialized existence. You seem to want to replace god with nature, in which case I suggest hanging out at a primitivist forum.

its just there as a commodity for us to use without any scrutiny.

Use responsibly yes. But I will save the crying for all the innocent trees that were cut down :lol:

this cold, dead view of the world is a completely bourgeois view

Subjective. I would say your mystic view of nature is anti-marxist. This is not a bourgeois view, it's a MATERIALIST view. Take your nature/godsucking somewhere else.

and only there to be exploited.

Of course thats what its there for. What the fuck do you think trees are gonna do if we don't use them for goods? Start spouting poetry and painting pictures? There is no destiny or for us or nature. We have no obligation or reason to not exploit the resources if we can do it sustainably.

jaycee

7th June 2006, 14:38

obviously we should use nature for our needs but this doesn't mean we shouldn't appreciate it in any way apart from its use to us. People for the vast majority of human existence have looked at nature and the universe with complete amazement. This obviously has been explained by 'spiritual' explanations, but just because we now have no need for many of these old and outdated views doesn't mean that we should loose that sense of wonder which gave rise to tese views.
The search for oneness with the universe is what underpins all spiritual beleifs, it is also founded on reality. The universe and ourselves are one, just as ourselves and the earth are part of one functioning body; this is a simple fact that cannot be reasoned against. Our alienation from our selves and from nature mean that at the moment we cannot experience this oneness except in glimpses (out of body experiences, through the use of drugs etc). In communism i think people will be able to regain this FEELING of oneness.

I am no primitavist because there views are massively impracticle and ignore the advances which have been made through the use of technology. we don't need to worship nature by we need to understand it better and simply recognise ou true relationship to it.

My view is not a mystic view, it is based on the recognition that the world around us is an amazing place and it is a massive cosmic fluke that our planet is so finely balanced, this is a materialial reality.

violencia.Proletariat

7th June 2006, 17:06

obviously we should use nature for our needs but this doesn't mean we shouldn't appreciate it in any way apart from its use to us.

This is up to the invidual. Any kind of organized "appreciation" of nature sounds a bit disturbing (are you gonna bring back talking to trees?). :lol:

People for the vast majority of human existence have looked at nature and the universe with complete amazement. This obviously has been explained by 'spiritual' explanations, but just because we now have no need for many of these old and outdated views doesn't mean that we should loose that sense of wonder which gave rise to tese views.

I had a similar discussion with a group of people who felt this way. They didn't like science because it took away the "mystery" of nature. If they were ever about to go into a life saving operation at the hospital, I think they would be singing a different tune.

I see no logical reason to promote pagan nature mysticism in order to make you feel better.

The search for oneness with the universe is what underpins all spiritual beleifs, it is also founded on reality.

You say this as if it means something. You are talking to materialists here, SPIRITS DON'T EXIST!

The universe and ourselves are one, just as ourselves and the earth are part of one functioning body; this is a simple fact that cannot be reasoned against.

We aren't really one. We function on earth but the earth does not need humans to exist. Trying to put some sort of "spiritual" connection with this is just plain daft.

Our alienation from our selves and from nature mean that at the moment we cannot experience this oneness except in glimpses (out of body experiences, through the use of drugs etc).

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you saying if I go out into the forest I will get a better high than off of drugs? :lol: If that were the case then why isn't the government locking people up for drug use in the national parks.

In communism i think people will be able to regain this FEELING of oneness.

I'm sorry but communism is not spiritualism.

we don't need to worship nature by we need to understand it better and simply recognise ou true relationship to it.

What true relationship? We depend on natural resources and we should exploit them in a sustainable way. That is our relationship to nature, nothing more.

it is based on the recognition that the world around us is an amazing place and it is a massive cosmic fluke that our planet is so finely balanced, this is a materialial reality.

Have you surveyed the universe and counted the number of earth like planets? If not then you cannot say it was a "fluke."

Calling the world an amazing place is SUBJECTIVE, not materialist.

jaycee

8th June 2006, 12:03

ok 1st of all know i don't think any 'forced' appreciation of nature would be a good idea, I don't know who you think would be doing the forcing, in a stateless, classless society. But i think the 'end of the seperation between town and country' that Marx spoke about would simply mean people would not see such a massive distinction between the 'unnatural' and the 'natural' worlds. The cities would loose their oppressive and alienating character which they possess under capitalism, as well as becoming less grotesquely massive, polluting and generaally not very nice places for a lot of people.

Science doesn't have to 'murder the mystery' because no matter how knowledgable we are of the earth/universe it is still awe inspiring anshould still be appreciatd as such. I beleive that mysticism is useful in some ways because i think there is something deeply human about it, such as the enjoyment we derive from fantastical ideas. But most importantly i think that the mystical view of the world reflects the fact of our ancestors being completely amazed by their environoment and in some senses over powered by it and thus tring to come to terms with it through equally amazing terms. We have now overcome nature to a large extent, howver as the dialectical method shows, in advancing we have lost something in our connection to nature. This will be regained at a higher level than that of our ancestors, because now we both have the ability to control and harness nature while also understanding it in a more advanced way than we do now.

Wat i am talking about when i say drugs and other experiences can offer glimpses at our true relationship with nature is this: whn people take drugs such as cannabis or magic mushrooms they often feel a greater sense of a connection to nature, also through out of baody experiences, when meditating or going through some sort of shamanic experience they often report these sorts of feelings. I don't believe that this is just a coincidence (that peole through out time and if completely different cultures have had similar experiences should show that it is more than this)it is rather a glimpse at a hidden truth, one which will only be truly reached and understood in a more advanced society.

i also didn't say that spirits exist, i said that the search for oneness and enlightnment is a wothwhile search as there are many hidden truths about which we do not fully understand yet, this is not a spiritual but a material fact. The search for a higher level of consciousness and of physical oneness with ourselves and with nature reflects something deep in the human physche and will continue to be in communism.

Peoples perceptionand conscioussness will be massively different in a communist society, this is what you fail to realise and why i consider your views in this case to be bourgeois, i.e thinking that the present relation to one another and to nature and our present conscioussness is eternal and 'god-given'. I'm gonna use a metaphor i read in a essay called 'The decadence of the Shamans, or Shamanism as the key to Communism'...just as the shamans of old claimed they could walk between worlds, so can communist as they live in the capitalist world but can catch glimpses of another world, a communist world.

violencia.Proletariat

8th June 2006, 19:21

But i think the 'end of the seperation between town and country' that Marx spoke about would simply mean people would not see such a massive distinction between the 'unnatural' and the 'natural' worlds.

What is "unnatrual" about a city, if you as you said, we are a part of nature? We built it therefore it's natural,right?

as well as becoming less grotesquely massive

Are you referring to urban sprawl? The citie's land masses would shrink once we fix this problem but that doesn't mean they will be smaller in terms of population.

Science doesn't have to 'murder the mystery' because no matter how knowledgable we are of the earth/universe it is still awe inspiring anshould still be appreciatd as such.

Why? Why should someone have to find the universe awe inspiring if they don't want to? What is the need for people to have a dumbfounded look at the universe? If anything we should be encouraging the exact opposite of what you propose so that way we can disect the universe and figure out how it functions.

What you are proposing sounds semi-religious.

But most importantly i think that the mystical view of the world reflects the fact of our ancestors being completely amazed by their environoment and in some senses over powered by it and thus tring to come to terms with it through equally amazing terms.

We haven't come to equal terms with nature. We harness and control it as best we can. But as nature shows (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc) we aren't in complete control of it. I see no reason as to why we should not try to control the natural world for our own benefit.

whn people take drugs such as cannabis or magic mushrooms they often feel a greater sense of a connection to nature

Personally, I get really hungry and laugh at dumb shit. I don't feel any greater connection with nature.

I don't believe that this is just a coincidence (that peole through out time and if completely different cultures have had similar experiences should show that it is more than this)it is rather a glimpse at a hidden truth, one which will only be truly reached and understood in a more advanced society.

...people can get similar highs off the same kinds of drugs. Is this your holy truth? :lol:

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post. Your whole arguement stinks of mysticism and is un-proven.

Hit The North

8th June 2006, 19:40

I prefer Hinduism, personally. It has elephants in it. :P

Dark Exodus

8th June 2006, 22:06

Peoples perceptionand conscioussness will be massively different in a communist society, this is what you fail to realise and why i consider your views in this case to be bourgeois, i.e thinking that the present relation to one another and to nature and our present conscioussness is eternal and 'god-given'. I'm gonna use a metaphor i read in a essay called 'The decadence of the Shamans, or Shamanism as the key to Communism'...just as the shamans of old claimed they could walk between worlds, so can communist as they live in the capitalist world but can catch glimpses of another world, a communist world.

How and why?

From here it seems like you're full of shit.

Xvall

8th June 2006, 22:28

What do you guys think about Buddhism.

Better than most philosophical/spiritual structures, but is still horribly annoying as an organized religion.

It's a very unique and revolutionary religion.

"Unique" is a meaningless word that applies to everything, try to refrain from using the world at all. It's not particularly revolutionary; it was no more radical than early christianity and like every system of religion was vaguely based on the beliefs that existed before it. (In this case, Hinduism and the Vedic texts.)

A man who was born to a king rejected his money and gave it all to the poor, stopped praying to the gods, and went off to become one with nature. Also it is the most peacful religion there is and teaches a beautiful philosophy.

For the most part it sounds good, but as something I've studied I'll say that it's not particularly peaceful. Unlike other religions it isn't inherently belligerent nor does it advocate genocide - but nor does it necessarily condemn violence. There is no central text to work with so as long as you claim you're a Buddhist you can basically act in whatever manner you like and you won't necessarily be wrong.

Also it's an atheist religion

ROFL.

I think I'd be a buddhist if I knew more about it.

That's a pretty absurd thing to say. If you don't "know more about it" how can you have a clear picture of it and come to the conclusion that it's something you'd like to be?

---

This is no different than praying to gods. It's completely irrational.

Finding a balance between one's self and one's surroundings is entirely different than praying to gods, and is a fairly applicable and rational thing to do, both environmentally and philosophically.

In any case, the original poster is wrong in that it's "becoming one with nature" - as that seems to give the message that it revolves around magically harmonizing with trees. Do you think nature is "green"?

WHY? Why do you need fucking spirituality? You don't have a spirit! You don't need to pretend to be "one" with nature because that doesn't mean anything. You can't be "close" to nature unless you are referring to being physically close to it, like if you were standing next to a forest. THATS ALL!

Since there is no god or ultimate truth, keep in mind that your statement is about as valid as his.

I think a good rule of thumb would be for people on any side of this equation to thourougly examine the religion before you make any silly conclusions about non-violence or talking to trees. (No, a Wikipedia entry doesn't count.)

Janus

8th June 2006, 23:39

You oughta see what's occured with the supposed Buddhist monks.

Some of them eat meat and even have families. :lol: So much for resisting temptation and living hermit and simple lives.

Xvall

9th June 2006, 00:24

Yeah. A great deal of Buddhists in predominately Buddhist nations are just sort of "borderline Buddhists" and don't adhere to the standards and code perpetuated by hardline Buddhists. The hardline ones don't seem to care so long as they recieve their donations.

Hit The North

9th June 2006, 00:27

To paraphrase some bloke with a beard: The point is to change the world, not transcend it.

Orange Juche

9th June 2006, 22:15

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 4 2006, 01:38 AM
Personally, I have no time for this silly superstitious crap.
Do you know anything about Buddhism at all?

It is not superstitious, it isn't really even a religion, it is a "path to enlightenment." It is a way of thinking and acting. Kind of a philosophy. There is no superstition in the basic teachings of Buddhism (there are groups whom have added Gods and levels of hell and all that, but true and pure Buddhism doesn't have that.).

I do not subscribe to Buddhist thought, nor am I attempting to defend it. I am trying to dispell that it is "superstitious," when it is a simple way of thinking and acting. I think it is silly, yes.

Next time you condemn something like this, maybe you should learn about it first.

Xvall

10th June 2006, 23:15

Do you know anything about Buddhism at all?

El Infiltr(A)do seems to know absolutely nothing about Buddhism, but from the sounds of it you're entirely on the mark either.

It is not superstitious, it isn't really even a religion, it is a "path to enlightenment." It is a way of thinking and acting. Kind of a philosophy.

The notion of "enlightenment" itself borderlines on the metaphysical and is superstitious in it's own sense. I agree with you in that the general notion of Buddhism barely qualifies as a religion, but in practice there are countless Buddhist schools and sects that are clearly religions, involving the literal belief in ghosts or spirits, chants and incantations to ward of evil entities, and rituals indicative of any religious practice.

There is no superstition in the basic teachings of Buddhism (there are groups whom have added Gods and levels of hell and all that, but true and pure Buddhism doesn't have that.).

What the hell are you talking about? What is pure buddhism, because in all the books I've read on the subject I've never heard of anything. Are you talking about Zen? An offshoot of Buddhism that occured after numerous predominant schools had already existed? That doesn't sound particularly "pure", and frankly it's hard to tell since there isn't a single buddhist "text" that is regarded as original or directly definitive of Buddhism.

I do not subscribe to Buddhist thought, nor am I attempting to defend it. I am trying to dispell that it is "superstitious," when it is a simple way of thinking and acting. I think it is silly, yes.

Don't take it the wrong way. I understand and entirely agree with the basic message you're trying to convey here, but I still make corrections when necessary.

Next time you condemn something like this, maybe you should learn about it first.

Agreed.

Xvall

10th June 2006, 23:38

Anyways, my basic policy on Buddhism is thus.

I do not like most sects of Buddhism, but since I have never found myself bothered or hassled by Buddhists, I don't have a problem with most Buddhists. I am somewhat fond of Zen Buddhism, at least some of the underlying themes of it. I am more of a fan of "Buddha" than I am "Buddhism", though I'm fairly confident that most storied about him are made of (can we even say for sure that he existed?) and most quotes attributed to him are possibly made up. Regardless, here's a decent one that was attributed to him:

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

emma_goldman

12th June 2006, 03:20

Overall, I think Buddhism is very reactionary. Buddhists believe that your suffering is primarily in your mind and it's not meant to really change outside circumstances but the way you perceive them. Maybe, it's just me, but doesn't this seem counter revolutionary?!?! :blink:

Pawn Power

12th June 2006, 03:24

revolutionary religion

I think not!

Free Left

12th June 2006, 16:11

Buddhism isn't a religion, It's a philosophy.

You oughta see what's occured with the supposed Buddhist monks.

Some of them eat meat and even have families. So much for resisting temptation and living hermit and simple lives.

Yeah, and a lot of communists hold shares and stakes in companies and work for corporations. :(
See what I mean?

emma_goldman

12th June 2006, 17:42

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 12 2006, 01:12 PM
Buddhism isn't a religion, It's a philosophy.

Buddhism is both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

Hit The North

12th June 2006, 19:21

Originally posted by emma_goldman+Jun 12 2006, 03:43 PM--> (emma_goldman @ Jun 12 2006, 03:43 PM)
Free [email protected] 12 2006, 01:12 PM
Buddhism isn't a religion, It's a philosophy.

Buddhism is both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism [/b]
Buddhism, like all pre-scientific systems, is an idealistic attempt to understand the universe and humanity's place in it. Like all forms of idealism it should be rejected by revolutionaries.

Brekisonphilous

12th June 2006, 22:14

Buddhist philosophy is awesome. I love to read about it it can really improve you as a person. I don't think of it as a religion though. Thats just stupid, they don't even believe in a higher power. I also don't believe in reincarnation.

But yeah, the philosophy of it is very good. Really makes you think about how we perceive the world. I think it runs pretty parallel with leftist ideals.
Anyone who disagrees just can't get past that it is considered a "religion" and it scares them. But the beauty of buddhism is you don't have to accept anything you don't want! Only what you believe to be truth, and that is definitely what we do here on the left.

Xvall

12th June 2006, 23:40

Originally posted by emma_goldman+Jun 12 2006, 02:43 PM--> (emma_goldman @ Jun 12 2006, 02:43 PM)
Free [email protected] 12 2006, 01:12 PM
Buddhism isn't a religion, It's a philosophy.

Buddhism is both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism [/b]
Omg. I specifically warned everyone to not consider a wikipedia article as a reliable and extensive source on the subject.

But the beauty of buddhism is you don't have to accept anything you don't want!

That depends on what sect you choose to associate with. Keep in mind, again, that there is no source Buddhist text or core Buddhist religious institution (Like the Vatican), so anyone can claim to be a Buddhist with no justification whatsoever and they're technically not wrong - so theoretically anyone can make "Buddhism" whatever they want so long as they tie some aspect into it.

Free Left

13th June 2006, 00:14

If Buddhism is a religion then it is not like any other.
It has never been used for political purposes to a great extent, it does not have god (Buddha does NOT count), they have no one universal leader (Dalhai Lama does NOT count) smd it has no missionaries,prophets or saints to a great extent.
This makes it almost unique.

emma_goldman

13th June 2006, 00:37

In order to be a religion it is centered around a person who is thought to be supernatural, sacred or divine or a system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred or divine. Buddhism is most certainly a religion. :P

Free Left

13th June 2006, 01:43

Ah, but although Buddhists revere Buddha. They don't think of him as someone above everyone else i.e supernatural or divine.
Anyone can reach Nirvana. Its just he did it first and spread the word.
They don't worship him, they worship what he represents.

Hit The North

13th June 2006, 04:19

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 12 2006, 11:44 PM
Ah, but although Buddhists revere Buddha. They don't think of him as someone above everyone else i.e supernatural or divine.
Anyone can reach Nirvana. Its just he did it first and spread the word.
They don't worship him, they worship what he represents.
The idea that Buddha achieved nirvana is an article of faith comparable with the idea that Jesus was resurrected. neither can be substantiated and therefore must be doubted.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is either seriously deluded or after your credit card.

OneBrickOneVoice

13th June 2006, 05:20

I've got some harcore reading to do this summer. I intend to read some lenin and some buddha.

Anyone know any good books that explain buddhism or anyone know any good lenin books?

emma_goldman

13th June 2006, 16:30

Buddhism for Dummies & The Buddha in the World ;)

Xvall

14th June 2006, 02:39

Read, people, read.

If Buddhism is a religion then it is not like any other.

No religion is like "any other" - what the hell is this supposed to mean?

It has never been used for political purposes to a great extent,

Not to the same extent as Christianity in, say, the Renaissance, but it's had it's place. Regardless, the amount of political influence something has isn't what makes it a "religion". Scientology has held less political sway than Buddhism but if you try to tell me it's not a religion I'm going to die laughing. (Of Asphyxiation)

it does not have god (Buddha does NOT count),

No universal god, no, but nor do a variety of religions. A central deity is not a prerequisite for a religion.

they have no one universal leader (Dalhai Lama does NOT count)

Who does have a "universal leader". Who is the universal "Christian Leader"? Who is the universal "Moslem Leader"? Who is the universal "Jewish Leader"? Short of Pope Benedict I don't think there are any.

smd it has no missionaries, [to a great extent]

Nor does Juddaism. Does this mean that Juddaism isn't a religion?

prophets

The Buddha himself would be considered the prophet - and again, this is not a requirement for something to be a religion.

or saints to a great extent.

Buddhism has countless saints. They are called Boddhisatvas. The Buddhists at large revere a number of them including Akasagarbha, Avolokitesvara, Maitreya, and Vajrapani.

This makes it almost unique.

It is unique. But what isn't? It's an unorthodox religion in comparison to what you're used to seeing, but it's a religion nonetheless.

Ah, but although Buddhists revere Buddha. They don't think of him as someone above everyone else i.e supernatural or divine.

That's pretty funny - because the Buddhist texts I read talked about him crossing dimensions in "pure lands" and a demon attacking him as he reached enlightenment and him magically turning the demon's projectile attacks into flowers. Which Buddhist texts did you read? Oh yeah, I forgot — NONE.

Anyone can reach Nirvana. Its just he did it first and spread the word.

I can say the same thing about Christianity and Jesus, almost.

They don't worship him, they worship what he represents.

Nonetheless it's worship.

---

In order to be a religion it is centered around a person who is thought to be supernatural, sacred or divine or a system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred or divine. Buddhism is most certainly a religion. :P

Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell with the emoticon. Anyways, if you're not being sarcastic, you're absolutely right about Buddhism being a religion. Your criterion for what constitutes as a religion, though, is utterly vague.

---

The idea that Buddha achieved nirvana is an article of faith comparable with the idea that Jesus was resurrected. neither can be substantiated and therefore must be doubted.

I wouldn't doubt Nirvana so much as I would ressurection considering that it's only a term used to describe a particular psychological mindset.

emma_goldman

14th June 2006, 05:46

The criterion for being a religion IS vague. I agree with you that Buddhism is a religion. I wasn't being sarcastic. :D

Brekisonphilous

14th June 2006, 07:01

I really don't understand what the problem would be with it. I mean they abstain from pretty much everything, so that just lowers the consumption rate.lol
It is pretty much a personal experience for each person, they are just supposed to help others, as in a charitable way, not to worship anything and be good and kind to everyone.

and it depends on the buddhist you ask, but it is predominantly an atheist religion.

Free Left

14th June 2006, 18:35

If Buddhism is a religion then it is not like any other.

It's UNIQUE. Give me another religion that believes that through meditation one can achieve a state of perpetual enlightentment.

Scientology has held less political sway than Buddhism but if you try to tell me it's not a religion I'm going to die laughing. (Of Asphyxiation)

Scientology isn't a major world religion with over 350 million followers.

Who does have a "universal leader". Who is the universal "Christian Leader"? Who is the universal "Moslem Leader"? Who is the universal "Jewish Leader"? Short of Pope Benedict I don't think there are any.

Sorry that should have been they had no one universal leader. Many organized religions had a leader i.e Moses, Jesus, St.Peter, Martin Luther, various monarchs, Conficius, various Empereors (Japan etc.), Zoroaster, the Oracle, a Pharoah, Baha'u'la etc.

The Buddha himself would be considered the prophet - and again, this is not a requirement for something to be a religion.

Does a founder count as a prophet? Perhaps, but again, Buddhists believe that he was just the first.

That's pretty funny - because the Buddhist texts I read talked about him crossing dimensions in "pure lands" and a demon attacking him as he reached enlightenment and him magically turning the demon's projectile attacks into flowers.

Is the demon your refering to "Mara"?
Of course stuff like that was written, but ask any Buddhist anywhere in the world if they literally believe that and I guarantee that most of them will answer No.

I can say the same thing about Christianity and Jesus, almost.

You can. But 2 billion Christians believe that Jesus walked on water, died and was resurrected, turned water into wine, raised the dead and was the son of God.
A bit different...

Nonetheless it's worship.

So?

Nor does Juddaism. Does this mean that Juddaism isn't a religion?

No, Judaism goes with the Jews. One of the central themes with the Jewish religion is that their God made a coveant with them. They believe that they are the chosen people, and their whole religion is geared towards that. Therefore, only a Jew may be a follower of Judaism so why would they send out missionaries?

Ol' Dirty

16th June 2006, 01:38

Yo, LH, I be a Zeny, talk to me. PM or something.

Buddhism isn't evaen a religion. It's agnositc in the extreme- listen to this:

Sure:

If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord?

If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?

If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!

-el Sitharta Guatima (or whatever his real name is)

That was from this thread:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47480

Also, if you're really interested, read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/157322656...glance&n=283155

So far, no one's pickied it apart (or they haven't been able to :rolleyes: )

Ol' Dirty

16th June 2006, 01:40

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 12 2006, 08:12 AM
Buddhism isn't a religion, It's a philosophy.

You oughta see what's occured with the supposed Buddhist monks.

Some of them eat meat and even have families. So much for resisting temptation and living hermit and simple lives.

Yeah, and a lot of communists hold shares and stakes in companies and work for corporations. :(
See what I mean?
I completely agree. It's not a religion, but a philosophy.

No divine spirits, no holy scripture, no concrete dogma= not a religion.

emma_goldman

16th June 2006, 01:58

From dictionary.com, the definition of religion:

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

:rolleyes:

violencia.Proletariat

16th June 2006, 03:34

All buddhist apologists, please listen. Buddhism, religion or not, IS FUCKING STUPID. Thank you.

Now please, instead of trying to find some worthless ancient religion/philosophy in order to make it compatable with communism, why don't you realize that being spiritual has no purpose. If you want to feel good take drugs, quit making imaginery things up.

Hampton El socialista

16th June 2006, 03:46

Some of you must not know a lot about Buddhism.

In the Mahyana vehicle they do have deities and a lot of ritual stuff. Like praying to the medicine Buddha for a cure from diseases and all of these types of things. It is a religion.

But I have mixed feelings about Buddhism. It got me to stay off drugs and alcohol. I used it more for meditation though and trying to find myself. Compared to just believing in something higher than me or whatever for help.

I guess now I have an agnostic/deist point of view.

Ol' Dirty

17th June 2006, 05:54

All buddhist apologists,

I'm not apoloqizing for shit, man. Please, stop making things up. :rolleyes: Ignorance keeps us down, and all you help do is chain the leftist community down with misconceptions without basis, or number.

please listen.

I'm all ears. :rolleyes:

Buddhism, religion or not, IS FUCKING STUPID.

Wow! That factual analysis completely blew me away! Wow! I'm going to copletely renounce my philosophical beliefs.

R-i-i-i-i-ght. :lol:

Thank you.

You're welcome. :D

violencia.Proletariat

17th June 2006, 07:14

I'm not apoloqizing for shit, man. Please, stop making things up. :rolleyes: Ignorance keeps us down, and all you help do is chain the leftist community down with misconceptions without basis, or number.

Ignorance of what? If one wanted to study buddhism thats fine. But you and others here want us to practice it, and even say its compatable with marxism. THATS NONSENSE.

Wow! That factual analysis completely blew me away! Wow! I'm going to copletely renounce my philosophical beliefs

Please tell me, what relevance does buddhism have to revolutionaries in an industrialized society? We don't need to be "one with nature" we need to overthrow capitalism.

Ol' Dirty

17th June 2006, 17:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 11:15 PM

I'm not apoloqizing for shit, man. Please, stop making things up. :rolleyes: Ignorance keeps us down, and all you help do is chain the leftist community down with misconceptions without basis, or number.

Ignorance of what? If one wanted to study buddhism thats fine. But you and others here want us to practice it, and even say its compatable with marxism. THATS NONSENSE.

You just called Buddhism "fucking stupid" a few seconds ago. What's your constructive point? :huh: Your confusing me with your hypocitical statements.

As for "not being compatable with Marxism, someone agrees with me:

http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.as...lMaps.Religions (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Maps&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalMaps.Religions)

As for placing it in the "religious maps" section is imporper, but, eh, I don't make choices for them. :(

Wow! That factual analysis completely blew me away! Wow! I'm going to copletely renounce my philosophical beliefs

Please tell me, what relevance does buddhism have to revolutionaries in an industrialized society? We don't need to be "one with nature" we need to overthrow capitalism.

Buddhism is the philosophy based around the realization of material reality, controling one's mind, realizing that all interpratation is (more or less) a dream, and being compassionate to all. It alows one to free ones mind from the chains of ignorance, alowing us to live our one life better. Doaism is very similar.

Rather revolutionary.

Hit The North

17th June 2006, 18:07

Buddhism is the philosophy based around the realization of material reality, controling one's mind, realizing that all interpratation is (more or less) a dream, and being compassionate to all. It alows one to free ones mind from the chains of ignorance, alowing us to live our one life better. Doaism is very similar.

Rather revolutionary.

How is that revolutionary?

Revolutionaries want to change the world; Budhists want to change only themselves.

violencia.Proletariat

17th June 2006, 19:08

You just called Buddhism "fucking stupid" a few seconds ago. What's your constructive point? :huh: Your confusing me with your hypocitical statements.

That buddhism has NO rational place in the revolutionary left.

Buddhism is the philosophy based around the realization of material reality, controling one's mind, realizing that all interpratation is (more or less) a dream, and being compassionate to all.

No it is not based in material reality. Spiritualism, moralism, ending all suffering, complete bullshit. Beign compassionate to all? Thats ridiciulous, if you want to overthrow capitalism while being polite to everyone your gonna get killed.

It alows one to free ones mind from the chains of ignorance

NO IT DOESN'T. Godamn you've been watching the matrix one too many times. "Free our minds" from what? Some spiritual wall inside our heads? That bullshit doesn't exist. If you want to be free from ignorance read a book, don't sit in a corner pretending to hear shit in your head.

Ol' Dirty

17th June 2006, 19:16

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 17 2006, 10:08 AM

Buddhism is the philosophy based around the realization of material reality, controling one's mind, realizing that all interpratation is (more or less) a dream, and being compassionate to all. It alows one to free ones mind from the chains of ignorance, alowing us to live our one life better. Doaism is very similar.

Rather revolutionary.

How is that revolutionary?

Revolutionaries want to change the world; Budhists want to change only themselves.
Buddhists change themselves first so they can better change the world around them. Universal change starts in our own back yard.

violencia.Proletariat

17th June 2006, 19:19

I've got the basics of your religion here from wiki, tell me if they are wrong.

The four noble truths,

duḥkha (Pāli: dukkha) "suffering": All worldly life is unsatisfactory, disjointed, containing suffering.

Actually all worldly life is not unsatisfactory. In capitalism it sucks on a material basis but there is enjoyment in life, at least I can find some.

samudaya "arising (of suffering)": There is a cause of suffering, which is attachment or desire (tṛṣṇā, Pāli taṇhā) rooted in ignorance (avidyā).

Are you proposing that people will not desire things in communism? If you want to live in a forest and eat bark off of trees be my guest. The rest of us will still desire material things except WE CAN GET THEM in a non exploitative way.

nirodha "cessation (of suffering)": There is an end of suffering, which is nirvāṇa (Pāli: nibbāna).

Is this an accurate description of nirvana?

It denotes a condition of Being devoid of passions such as lust, anger or craving and is thus a state of great inner peace and contentment.

Impossible. These are human emotions, while some don't have them as much as others they will always exist. You cannot destroy these unless you want to turn everyone into vegetables through drugs. Craving? So are you telling me you are never hungry for food? How does buddhism solve this? Meditate until you starve to death?

mārga (Pāli: magga) "path (to cessation)": There is a path that leads out of suffering, known as the Noble Eightfold Path.

Let us have a look at this path.

Right View - Realizing the Four Noble Truths (samyag-dṛṣṭi, sammā-diṭṭhi)
Right Intention - Commitment to mental and Ethical growth in moderation (samyak-saṃkalpa, sammā-saṅkappa)

Mental growth in moderation? But I thought we were supposed to destroy our ignorance :rolleyes: We can't have buddhist disciples learning too much!

Right Speech - One speaks in a non hurtful, not exaggerated, truthful way (samyag-vāc, sammā-vācā)

How about this one, CAPITALISM FUCKING SUCKS. That was hurtful to many, but ain't it the damn truth? :lol: Guess what, we don't give a shit whats hurtful to our class enemies, they must be taken out of power. Sucking buddhist philosophy isn't really compatable now is it?

Right Action - Wholesome action, avoiding action that would hurt others (samyak-karmānta, sammā-kammanta)

So let's pull a Gandhi here and just let the nazis throw us in the ovens :rolleyes: Fuck that shit.

Right Work - Ones job does not hurt oneself or others; directly or indirectly (weapon maker, drug dealer, etc.) (samyag-ājīva, sammā-ājīva}

So how are we to fight this revolution with no weapons? Sticks and stones? Would that mean that the trees and rocks could not find nirvana since they are now weapons?

Right Effort - One makes an effort to improve (samyag-vyāyāma, sammā-vāyāma)

Wow thats no vague. And since that is entirely subjective you can do whatever you want. Hmmm this religion is starting to sound a lot like Christianity, Islam (be peaceful just kill the people who disagree with you).

Right Mindfulness - Mental ability to see things for what they are with clear consciousness (samyak-smṛti, sammā-sati)

And thats exactly what I'm doing now with this stupid religion/philosophy.

Right Concentration - State where one reaches enlightenment and the ego has disappeared (samyak-samādhi, sammā-samādhi)

And pigs are flying right now.

CCCPneubauten

17th June 2006, 19:24

Don't they believe in Karma or something stupi dlike that? Forgive my ignorance of the subject....

Ol' Dirty

17th June 2006, 19:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:09 AM

You just called Buddhism "fucking stupid" a few seconds ago. What's your constructive point? :huh: Your confusing me with your hypocitical statements.

That buddhism has NO rational place in the revolutionary left.

Thank you for clarifying your point. I was begining to wonder if you were a hypocrite. :lol:

Buddhism is the philosophy based around the realization of material reality, controling one's mind, realizing that all interpratation is (more or less) a dream, and being compassionate to all.

No it is not based in material reality.

Spiritualism,

Zen Buddhism isn't extreamly spiritual, actual. It is very real.

moralism,

I see no reason not to be moralistic. Morals are what set us apart from mundane beasts. Without them, people would feel no gilt, no empathy, or even sypathy. The capitlists, fundimentalists and fascists would win in a heartbeat. That's whay socilalism is so desireable: its moral standrd of living, and its views on equality and justice.

If you so desire to be ammoral, go ahead. You have your right. But don't try pushing your views on me, please. It's rather undesireable.

ending all suffering,

The Buddha proposed eniding with sufffering in our minds, which came from material lust, craving and hunger, which makes people do all sorts of awful things.

complete bullshit.

I suppose that makes two of us, eh? ;)

Beign compassionate to all? Thats ridiciulous, if you want to overthrow capitalism while being polite to everyone your gonna get killed.

Those who can't understand compassion most likely haven't experienced pain all that often. That's why we need to show people more compassion; that way they may realize their errors and cease. The ball goes around and around.

Of course, I don't believe in helpng those who oppress. The only way to stop a mad bull is to stop it. But of course, is it not compassion to stop it from sowing the seeds of it's own destruction?

It alows one to free ones mind from the chains of ignorance

Godamn you've been watching the matrix one too many times.

Well, Keaneu Reeves is pretty hot...

:lol:

Nah.

Morpheous is sexier.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Joking. :)

"Free our minds" from what?

Ego, idealism and self-enslavement.

emma_goldman

17th June 2006, 19:58

You can't fully liberate your mind in a society such as ours anyway. Change the world and liberation of the mind and body will occur. :)

Ol' Dirty

17th June 2006, 20:13

I've got the basics of your religion here from wiki, tell me if they are wrong.

:lol:

You're funny.

Wikipedia isn't well known for reliability...

But I'll answer anyway. :)

The four noble truths,

duḥkha (Pāli: dukkha) "suffering": All worldly life is unsatisfactory, disjointed, containing suffering.

Actually all worldly life is not unsatisfactory. In capitalism it sucks on a material basis but there is enjoyment in life, at least I can find some.

It depends on how you see it. The buddha (from my point of view) was tlking about how we interperate life as unstisfactory, and that is what causes people to experience suffering.

samudaya "arising (of suffering)": There is a cause of suffering, which is attachment or desire (tṛṣṇā, Pāli taṇhā) rooted in ignorance (avidyā).

Are you proposing that people will not desire things in communism

I propose that in an Iideal society, people would crave less, and there would be more contentment and hapiness in people's lives. Also, people would be kinder, healthier and all-around more simplistic in their way of life. Fewer material goods would be needed. One would simply enjoy fine music, good food, a bit of entertainment, play games, make love, etc. People wouldn't be as selfish because they wouldn't be able to or need to.

If you want to live in a forest and eat bark off of trees be my guest.

I don't.

Bark is better with mustard anyway. Plain sucks.

:)

The rest of us will still desire material things except WE CAN GET THEM in a non exploitative way.

Why do we need more shit? Simplicity is the key.

nirodha "cessation (of suffering)": There is an end of suffering, which is nirvāṇa (Pāli: nibbāna).

Is this an accurate description of nirvana?

No.

Here's mine:

A feeling of contenement and balance between ones self and reality.

QUOTE]It denotes a condition of Being devoid of passions such as lust, anger or craving and is thus a state of great inner peace and contentment.[/QUOTE]

Impossible. These are human emotions, while some don't have them as much as othe you want to turn everyone into vegetables through drugs. Craving? So are you telling me you are never hungry for food? How does buddhism solve this? Meditate until you starve to death?rs they will always exist. You cannot destroy these unless

I bleieve in coping more than getting rid of emotion. The negative emotions are what makes life fun. What I think shoul be done is a balance between negative and positive emotions.

Right View - Realizing the Four Noble Truths (samyag-dṛṣṭi, sammā-diṭṭhi)
Right Intention - Commitment to mental and Ethical growth in moderation (samyak-saṃkalpa, sammā-saṅkappa)

Mental growth in moderation? But I thought we were supposed to destroy our ignorance :rolleyes: We can't have buddhist disciples learning too much!

It's meant to be inteperated as steady mental growth. Moderation means learning as much as you can without it becoming overwhelming for you.

violencia.Proletariat

17th June 2006, 20:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 12:50 PM

I see no reason not to be moralistic. Morals are what set us apart from mundane beasts. Without them, people would feel no gilt, no empathy, or even sypathy. The capitlists, fundimentalists and fascists would win in a heartbeat. That's whay socilalism is so desireable: its moral standrd of living, and its views on equality and justice.

Theres a debate thread on this, I think its in religion. Socialism is a rational way of living.

If you so desire to be ammoral, go ahead. You have your right. But don't try pushing your views on me, less you lose what makes you a person.

Um, being a human being is not defined by being totalitarian or not.

The Buddha proposed eniding with sufffering in our minds, which came from material lust, craving and hunger, which makes people do all sorts of awful things.

You can't stop these things without drugging someone! If you think socialism is going to end the want for material items then you are mistaken. I suggest you go live on a hippie commune.

That's why we need to show people more compassion; that way they may realize their errors and cease. The ball goes around and around.

Wow and you say you are grounded in reality? So if we are nice to fascists they will stop stabbing and shooting people? :rolleyes: I hope your not next to me on a barricade, you'd probably turn your back while a cop smashes my skull.

But of course, is it not compassion to stop it from sowing the seeds of it's own destruction?

What? Executing members of the former bourgeois is something a "compassionate" person like yourself would probably have a problem with. If your going to make excuses for why you are doing this to make it fit with your philosophy/religion than just give up your philosophy/religion.

Ego, idealism and self-enslavement.

So can you please identify every action humans take that come from these ideas. Then I would like you to tell me what your going to do with the people who perpetuate these ideas and aren't willing to do your little meditation scheme.

CubaSocialista

20th June 2006, 08:10

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description .. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)

Albert Einstein was a moderate socialist.

However, I do not mean to digress.

Marxism evolved from Hegelian thought, which was a culmination of previous philosophic trends...

Buddhism, as a spiritual-philosophic trend NOT APPLIED TO SOCIETY, GOVERNMENT, or anywhere outside the individual's lifestyle, is one of the forebears of Eastern thought, which often mingled with Western thought.

A Buddhist Communist is no oxymoron.